How Politicians Work

[hectorberlioz]

Ok, here's what's on my mind.

George W. Bush's image has been, up until 2004 of a cowboy, straight-talking ten-gallon hatter. These days it's more of a clutzy joker...no fault of his, because I think he's always been that way, and never good with the press, so his weaknesses are made manifest to the reporters, who in turn write about him.

My question is: Is George Bush a smart man? As in, did he do his Yale homework? And does he just act goofy or just plain Texan on purpose to connect with people (what he thinks is connecting anyways).

I think he beats around the bush (no pun intended) when he speaks because I think thats what he thinks is the way to do it, and complicated by the fact that he has to dance around the press' extraordinary ability to edit someone's speech to tilt a certain way...

When he said the S word to Tony Blair about Syria, he was the true direct speaking politician he should be. I'd rather him say the S word a hundred times in a straight-plain speech than mumble hair-splitting inanities trying to be politically correct.

This question of smarts should be asked not just of the President, but of every single politician out there.


The wily politician, he is everywhere: he changes his stance just before election day, and whether through inablility of congress and senate to agree, one politician can't fulfil his promises to the state voters that voted him in.

[The Gaffer]

I would say so, just perhaps not the best educated. Also, he is manifestly incompetent, politically bankrupt and utterly subservient to his corporate masters.

But you already knew that

In answer to your question, how do politicians work, if you reach into your pocket, pull out your wallet and take out one of those crisp, green bits of paper with George Washington's face on it, you've got your answer.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I would say so, just perhaps not the best educated. Also, he is manifestly incompetent, politically bankrupt and utterly subservient to his corporate masters.

But you already knew that

In answer to your question, how do politicians work, if you reach into your pocket, pull out your wallet and take out one of those crisp, green bits of paper with George Washington's face on it, you've got your answer.

Hmm...I was thinking more about brain processing...but I guess you've given the answer...

btw, not just Washington's face, what about Darwin's face over there, working on YOUR politicians' brain processing? Eh?

[The Gaffer]

Yes, thankfully most of our politicians have brains, and therefore don't spend too much time obsessing about Darwin.

But the same rules apply: money buys politicians. We have had a massive deregulation of gambling here for which there was absolutely no public demand, just that New Labour donors wanted it. Same with the fudge over tobacco advertising etc etc. And they have been doling out peerages (i.e. a Lordship) in return for loans.

It's also true that many people have made the mistake of "misunderestimating" Bush (to coin his own phrase), and his puppetmasters. He has played a very clever, cynical game. History, however, will not be kind to him.

My view is that he will be remembered as a stooge too far: it is increasingly obvious that the US Presidency is a facade for corporate interests, and the setup is optimised to ensure that nothing ever happens that is bad for big business.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yes, thankfully most of our politicians have brains, and therefore don't spend too much time obsessing about Darwin.

But the same rules apply: money buys politicians. We have had a massive deregulation of gambling here for which there was absolutely no public demand, just that New Labour donors wanted it. Same with the fudge over tobacco advertising etc etc. And they have been doling out peerages (i.e. a Lordship) in return for loans.

It's also true that many people have made the mistake of "misunderestimating" Bush (to coin his own phrase), and his puppetmasters. He has played a very clever, cynical game. History, however, will not be kind to him.

My view is that he will be remembered as a stooge too far: it is increasingly obvious that the US Presidency is a facade for corporate interests, and the setup is optimised to ensure that nothing ever happens that is bad for big business.

Glad to see you at least aknowledge that he knows what he's doing (as in, he knew what it was about). Lefties over here don't even grant him an inch of sanity.

I think history gets kinder as it gets older (or younger), and if things workout with Iraq and the next Pres, Bush's status will go up somewhat.

No doubt about the money deals. Btw, Maybe if I gave Cameron, or Blair or Prince Charles a few thousand, they'd give me a Knighthood?

[Butterbeer]

El Gaffer: (last seen at da groucho club ...)

Yes, thankfully most of our politicians have brains

... he'll never live that one down!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

When he said the S word to Tony Blair about Syria, he was the true direct speaking politician he should be. I'd rather him say the S word a hundred times in a straight-plain speech than mumble hair-splitting inanities trying to be politically correct.

What, you mean ****?

EDIT: Dude, that word is TOTALLY PG-13 safe! What the smurf??

In answer to your question, how do politicians work, if you reach into your pocket, pull out your wallet and take out one of those crisp, green bits of paper with George Washington's face on it, you've got your answer.

Politicians work on one dollar? Jeez, how cheap. But joking aside, you're definitely right; honest politicians are a rare, rare breed in our day and age. Part of the reason I care so little for our day and age.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Glad to see you at least aknowledge that he knows what he's doing (as in, he knew what it was about). Lefties over here don't even grant him an inch of sanity.

I think history gets kinder as it gets older (or younger), and if things workout with Iraq and the next Pres, Bush's status will go up somewhat.

Thanks for taking that in the spirit it was intended. It seems to me that the "left" in the US has made the mistake of attacking the puppet instead of the puppetmaster. Surely there's political capital to made out of "Who do you want running your country? Exxon or the people?"

However, the only way history could be kind to him IMO would be for having the audacity to invade Iraq to get hold of its oil, which, in 20 years time, you (i.e. the US) may be particularly thankful for as the price of energy goes truly stratospheric.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No doubt about the money deals. Btw, Maybe if I gave Cameron, or Blair or Prince Charles a few thousand, they'd give me a Knighthood?

I think the going rate would be more in the region of a million or so.

[GreyMouser]

I think intelligence is a vastly overrated virtue in politicians. Some very smart people made terrible leaders (Carter, in the US) while some who could charitably be described as less than brilliant (Reagan) did quite well relying on a few basics.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Thanks for taking that in the spirit it was intended. It seems to me that the "left" in the US has made the mistake of attacking the puppet instead of the puppetmaster. Surely there's political capital to made out of "Who do you want running your country? Exxon or the people?"

However, the only way history could be kind to him IMO would be for having the audacity to invade Iraq to get hold of its oil, which, in 20 years time, you (i.e. the US) may be particularly thankful for as the price of energy goes truly stratospheric.

I think the going rate would be more in the region of a million or so.

Wow. they'd really do it?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

I think intelligence is a vastly overrated virtue in politicians. Some very smart people made terrible leaders (Carter, in the US) while some who could charitably be described as less than brilliant (Reagan) did quite well relying on a few basics.

I dont think Reagan was as dumb as he pretended to be. I think it was to his benefit to act that way among all the high brows and insiders and wonks. Bush on the other hand likes to promote his down home everyman reputation but the thing is that thats really all thats there. The rest is empty suit. Where as Reagan had his public image but was much more of a leader behind the scenes.

[brownjenkins]

I heard a biographer speak on Reagan, and Bush a bit (I can't remember who it was). He mentioned that Reagan, even though he certainly took the conservative hardline approach in public on many issues, was very open to compromise on a whole host of issues, from international to at home economic matters. Reagan was also a fan of FDR in his youth and, while I think many of his policies were misguided, as he realized himself later in his presidency, his intentions were more for the benefit of all the people, rather than just the rich as it is sometimes remembered.

GW Bush, by contrast, is very much a "rich kid" who grew up with little or no real exposure to the common man. I still remember a news report when his father was president about how amazed he was when he went to a supermarket and saw the barcode scanners, something that had been out for years at the time. He thinks what he does is right only because he knows so little about what life in america is all about.

I think GW's issue is less about intelligence, and more a matter of common knowledge about the 95% of the american populace that he has been sheltered from for his entire life. It's almost sad if it wasn't so tragic.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I think GW's issue is less about intelligence...

Thanks I appreciate that.

[The Telcontarion]

Just click on the link below, bush is preparing for marhall law:

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...378&frame=true

PS. If you scroll down on the netscape home page you will see another article where newt gringrich is saying that anti-war americans are insurgency.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Thanks I appreciate that.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I figured I'd better jump in and steal the compliment before Grey_Wolf did.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I heard a biographer speak on Reagan, and Bush a bit (I can't remember who it was). He mentioned that Reagan, even though he certainly took the conservative hardline approach in public on many issues, was very open to compromise on a whole host of issues, from international to at home economic matters. Reagan was also a fan of FDR in his youth and, while I think many of his policies were misguided, as he realized himself later in his presidency, his intentions were more for the benefit of all the people, rather than just the rich as it is sometimes remembered.

Well, I'm a fan of FDR too, but that despite that I probably would disagree on the welfare area...

GW Bush, by contrast, is very much a "rich kid" who grew up with little or no real exposure to the common man. I still remember a news report when his father was president about how amazed he was when he went to a supermarket and saw the barcode scanners, something that had been out for years at the time. He thinks what he does is right only because he knows so little about what life in america is all about.

I think GW's issue is less about intelligence, and more a matter of common knowledge about the 95% of the american populace that he has been sheltered from for his entire life. It's almost sad if it wasn't so tragic.

I think you're right, he was just too secluded (you know what I mean...)
It seems to me that this is how it is with most of the bussinessmen presidents, whearas the ones who had lawyer experience probably knew their people better...
I say this about the bussinessmen because what they do mostly is make money, and that is not exactly something that makes you "click" with people.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I dont think Reagan was as dumb as he pretended to be. I think it was to his benefit to act that way among all the high brows and insiders and wonks. Bush on the other hand likes to promote his down home everyman reputation but the thing is that thats really all thats there. The rest is empty suit. Where as Reagan had his public image but was much more of a leader behind the scenes.

This is more of what I've heard about Reagan, he looked like your everyman, and his real political toughness was behind-the-scenes.

I think Bush needs to drop what he thinks is his everyman look, and start showing that he went to college. People at this point are sick of his jumbled speeches (WHO writes these?!!)

[Grey_Wolf]

Perhaps a little OT -

Sweden, imo, is the country in the world who suffers the worst from politicomania, that is the tendency of the media to place everything in a political aspect.

[Jonathan]

Oh, I don't know if our media is worse than the media in many other countries. Besides, I think this tends to happen during an election year.

[Grey_Wolf]

Sorry, Jonathan, but it doesnt matter if it is election year or not. The politicomania is spread evenly over every hour, day, month and year. The Swedish Media's politics-horniness have no rival in other countries.